chemvictim

kylemittskus wrote:We're heading for a glacier and instead of turning the ship, both sides are going to cut of their noses. The problem is, it's our faces that are going to pay for that, not theirs. F 'em all.

True. I expect an immediate, very unpleasant effect on my interests. but I'll get over it.

kylemittskus

I agree with everything except it's only half the story. The 'pubs are absolutely, hot air-billowing asshats who won't say anything. But the dems are just as bad. I just heard a stastic that the current SS payout in relation to what the receiver of said payout put in is 9/7. I give 7 and get 9. That's a HUGE issue. And Obama's suggestions are not even close to enough.

If this is going to be fixed, which it isn't, someone needs to stand up and suggest cutting everything across the board, including defense and schools and SS and medicare and unemployment and and and... we can't keep paying in less than we're taking out.

Both sides know it, but both sides are too dumb to do something about it. Instead, they want to point fingers back and forth so they can say they tried.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

bhodilee

Neither side ever gives details because they don't want to piss off the party bosses who can't piss off special interests in fear that their party will start losing. I think it's funny what bambi did though. You wants cuts, fine, tell me which cuts and lets get to it. Oh wait, you can't tell me which cuts? Well how bout we just raise taxes then. No? Well don't blame me for when this gift goes back in a month. Pretty brilliant.

Also, maybe we should have one term presidents instead of two term presidents. Seems like when they don't have to campaign for reelection the first four years they can get things done and be more forceful.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

coynedj

As I said in a post a few weeks back, “budgets are where details live”. The party that is clamoring for tax increases should give details on said increases, and the party that is clamoring for spending cuts should give details on those cuts. That just makes sense to me. The first has happened and the second hasn’t, and it is obvious why – “cut spending” is popular, but “cut exactly these things” tends not to be so popular.

When someone calls your bluff, there are three ways to deal with it. One is to admit that it was a bluff, and I don’t see the Republican leadership doing that. Another is to prove that it wasn’t a bluff, which they can do by giving some details. The third, of course, is to tip over the table, and I’m sure that strategists are working overtime trying to figure out how to do that and make it look like it’s Obama’s fault.

All of this gets we the people nowhere, though. Politicians have painted themselves into corners. A lot of people, myself included, can see that we can't tax ourselves to prosperity, and can't slash ourselves to prosperity either. A mix is required, and all the "100% this" and "100% that" talk is only posturing before the serious talks begin. It just seems that Boehner is still in posturing mode, and he needs to (but is very reluctant to) shift to negotiating mode. Given the poll results here, it seems that the majority of Americans have concluded that when it comes to painting into corners, it is the Republicans who have been the most active at wielding the brushes.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

chemvictim

I wonder if they're really doing anything at all. I think they're mostly goofing off with an occasional press conference thrown in, and they won't do gift until the last minute. Like a college freshman who spends all his time playing video games and then crams the night before the test.

kylemittskus

chemvictim wrote:I wonder if they're really doing anything at all. I think they're mostly goofing off with an occasional press conference thrown in, and they won't do gift until the last minute. Like a college freshman who spends all his time playing video games and then crams the night before the test.

I'm substantially concerned that we'll get to that last minute and they'll keep playing "quien es mas macho?".

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

kylemittskus

I completely agree with the article. And I'm guessing chem does, too. I think we should remove anything that says "God" from any official the gov't issues and/or (money, Anthem, etc.).

I just heard this story yesterday. An elected official sponsored a bill to have "pro-life" license plates, but the legislature rejected six separate amendments to have the opposite.If we want free speech (and freedom of religion), that pendulum needs to swing both ways!

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

jawlz

kylemittskus wrote:I completely agree with the article. And I'm guessing chem does, too. I think we should remove anything that says "God" from any official the gov't issues and/or (money, Anthem, etc.).

I just heard this story yesterday. An elected official sponsored a bill to have "pro-life" license plates, but the legislature rejected six separate amendments to have the opposite.If we want free speech (and freedom of religion), that pendulum needs to swing both ways!

It would cost a substantial amount of money to replace existing things with God referenced on them; I suppose you could just do things gradually, similar to how we issue new types of bills, but then again I don't see how a reference to God that very few people even notice on money is a problem.

I myself am relatively non-religious, and as I have said before I have some serious libertarian leanings, but I just can't get very worked up about this. If we start moving towards a theocracy, then yeah, I will take up arms side-by-side with the atheists out there. But while some of the hard-core religious people out there are super vocal, I don't know that they're really influencing policy as much as much as many claim.

And, of course, as I have said several times before, it is worth noting the importance that religion has played in this country's development (not necessarily the role it has played in the state, but in general society moreover). I urge everyone who claims that religion had little role in the country's development to go back and read Toqueville; religion was a huge part of how we developed the way we did, and, I would argue, its effects were usually (though not always) a force for good as well.

chemvictim

kylemittskus wrote:I completely agree with the article. And I'm guessing chem does, too. I think we should remove anything that says "God" from any official the gov't issues and/or (money, Anthem, etc.).

I just heard this story yesterday. An elected official sponsored a bill to have "pro-life" license plates, but the legislature rejected six separate amendments to have the opposite.If we want free speech (and freedom of religion), that pendulum needs to swing both ways!

Yeah, I read that too. It seemed very reasonable to me. The religion in politics is getting way out of hand. We are not all of the same faith (or any faith, for some). Even among Christians, there are plenty of different beliefs and interpretations. I have pitiful knowledge of history, but I think the founding fathers wanted this to be a country where we could all practice our own crazy beliefs without government intervention. All of us.

chemvictim

jawlz wrote:It would cost a substantial amount of money to replace existing things with God referenced on them; I suppose you could just do things gradually, similar to how we issue new types of bills, but then again I don't see how a reference to God that very few people even notice on money is a problem.

It's not an important issue to me, but when people start in with the "one nation under God," "in God we trust," = we are a Christian nation so you must obey my idea of what it is to be a Christian, I get annoyed. People in this forum don't do that. I know people who do.

chemvictim

jawlz wrote:I myself am relatively non-religious, and as I have said before I have some serious libertarian leanings, but I just can't get very worked up about this. If we start moving towards a theocracy, then yeah, I will take up arms side-by-side with the atheists out there. But while some of the hard-core religious people out there are super vocal, I don't know that they're really influencing policy as much as much as many claim.

I don't know you personally. If you're a straight man, it might not be as obvious to you since you're not in the crosshairs. Or maybe you think it's just a bunch of hot air, like a lot of other people do. For my part, as I've said many times, the fundies might not have a great chance of success but the fact that they are trying and it's mainstream, that is frightening.

coynedj

The following is based on my own reading, and may be lacking in many respects - if so, I welcome factual correction. Also, I'm under the influence, and when I am I tend to ramble.

The founding fathers lived in an age in which government-sponsored religions, supported by taxes and often with legal penalties for non-observance (and often deadly repurcussions for belief in the "wrong" church) was the norm in Europe. Exceptions were uncommon, and it was flight from these oppressions that led many to these shores. Given the importance of religion in peoples' lives at the time, and the recent hisory of religious wars on the Continent, it was felt that a lack of uniformity in observance was a path toward insurrection.

Once here, many of those fleeing religious oppression proved they were really seeking a new place where they could be the ones in power. Several colonies were explicitly established as religious communities where tolerance was not smiled upon, and people were executed for heresy.

America had two great advantages in establishing religious tolerance, when compared to Europe. One, it came together as a nation during the Enlightenment, when reason was looked to as the basis for society rather than religion. And two, if it was to hold together it had no choice but to deal with the great variety of religious practices of its people.

The founding fathers were men of the Enlightenment - on that there is no doubt. And they were willing to do something which was anathema in Europe, regarding religion and government and commerce and a host of other subjects. They were willing to let people do their own thing. Toleration was seen as a good thing, not a weakness. Our system of representative rather than royal governance gave those in charge less reign to or reason to insist that their way was the only way.

So, separation of church and state (no "established" religions, meaning no systems like they had in Europe) is really a necessary part of that open system of governance. Any step away from it is a step away from what has long made America great. Religion is a vital part of our society, and has been so since the beginning. But it should play no part in our self-governance. The many state-level bills restricting the availability of abortion and the teaching of evolution are two steps in the wrong direction, when based (as they surely are in most every case) on religious grounds.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

kylemittskus

coynedj wrote:So, separation of church and state (no "established" religions, meaning no systems like they had in Europe) is really a necessary part of that open system of governance. Any step away from it is a step away from what has long made America great. Religion is a vital part of our society, and has been so since the beginning. But it should play no part in our self-governance. The many state-level bills restricting the availability of abortion and the teching of evolution are two steps in the wrong direction, when based (as they surely are in most every case) on religious grounds.

My knowledge about inchoate America isn't very extensive, but my understanding is basically what you said. I'd add that quite a few of the founding fathers were deists; to them, "In God We Trust," meant something very different than it would to a Southern Baptist.

And I agree with this last paragraph 100%. I have no issue with religion. Just don't give it to me. And no policy whatsoever should be religiously based, motivated, or funded. I can separate my religious beliefs from my politics. Why can't everyone else?

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

jawlz

kylemittskus wrote:My knowledge about inchoate America isn't very extensive, but my understanding is basically what you said. I'd add that quite a few of the founding fathers were deists; to them, "In God We Trust," meant something very different than it would to a Southern Baptist.

And I agree with this last paragraph 100%. I have no issue with religion. Just don't give it to me. And no policy whatsoever should be religiously based, motivated, or funded. I can separate my religious beliefs from my politics. Why can't everyone else?

If a policy that is religiously motivated is nevertheless still good policy, would you still be opposed to it?

It is very good to judge policies based on their efficacy and effects; judging them instead based on the motivations of those behind them seems a bit problematic to me.

bhodilee

jawlz wrote:It would cost a substantial amount of money to replace existing things with God referenced on them; I suppose you could just do things gradually, similar to how we issue new types of bills, but then again I don't see how a reference to God that very few people even notice on money is a problem.

I myself am relatively non-religious, and as I have said before I have some serious libertarian leanings, but I just can't get very worked up about this. If we start moving towards a theocracy, then yeah, I will take up arms side-by-side with the atheists out there. But while some of the hard-core religious people out there are super vocal, I don't know that they're really influencing policy as much as much as many claim.

And, of course, as I have said several times before, it is worth noting the importance that religion has played in this country's development (not necessarily the role it has played in the state, but in general society moreover). I urge everyone who claims that religion had little role in the country's development to go back and read Toqueville; religion was a huge part of how we developed the way we did, and, I would argue, its effects were usually (though not always) a force for good as well.

I think religion and politics are bad ideas (together and individually), but a nativity scene on public ground or saying a prayer before a board meeting aren't the end of the world. Just keep it out of my POLICY please.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

MarkDaSpark

kylemittskus wrote:My knowledge about inchoate America isn't very extensive, but my understanding is basically what you said. I'd add that quite a few of the founding fathers were deists; to them, "In God We Trust," meant something very different than it would to a Southern Baptist.

And I agree with this last paragraph 100%. I have no issue with religion. Just don't give it to me. And no policy whatsoever should be religiously based, motivated, or funded. I can separate my religious beliefs from my politics. Why can't everyone else?

Because that's the rub. If you can separate the two, then you aren't religious at all. It's along the lines of "if you're going to talk the talk, you've got to walk the walk". So if you are a "Sunday Christian", you go to church on Sunday, but act anyway you want the rest of the week. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Religion isn't something you are allowed to turn on/off. Sadly, far too many politicians seem to think you can.

There's also two issues involved here. Number one is that the media needs controversy to promote ratings/sales.

So they are going to spotlight the religious crazies more than the majority (normal, boring people), and thus, more people start to equate religion with those crazies.

The second issue is that some people feel that the decline of the US is due to the "lessening" of our religious values. So as a result, they go extreme in their religious beliefs. And then the media highlights their craziness.

The key that most seem to forget, is that it's Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. Too many have seem to forgotten that, and believe that we need to force religions into "approved" paths.

Edit: If the media didn't cover those snowmans protesting the military funerals, do you think they'd still do it?

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim

MarkDaSpark wrote:Because that's the rub. If you can separate the two, then you aren't religious at all. It's along the lines of "if you're going to talk the talk, you've got to walk the walk". So if you are a "Sunday Christian", you go to church on Sunday, but act anyway you want the rest of the week. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Religion isn't something you are allowed to turn on/off. Sadly, far too many politicians seem to think you can.

There's also two issues involved here. Number one is that the media needs controversy to promote ratings/sales.

So they are going to spotlight the religious crazies more than the majority (normal, boring people), and thus, more people start to equate religion with those crazies.

The second issue is that some people feel that the decline of the US is due to the "lessening" of our religious values. So as a result, they go extreme in their religious beliefs. And then the media highlights their craziness.

The key that most seem to forget, is that it's Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. Too many have seem to forgotten that, and believe that we need to force religions into "approved" paths.

Edit: If the media didn't cover those snowmans protesting the military funerals, do you think they'd still do it?

I think you can separate the two. You can practice your faith privately. By that I mean, hold yourself to whichever standards you like (and these are not all the same for all religious people, obviously), but do not try to compel others. More walking the walk, less talking the talk. I like to think that most people do that already. If you want to share your faith, you can lead by example rather than compel and threaten. I'm looking at you, gay marriage opponents.

I have to disagree about freedom FROM religion. Depending on what you think that means, I guess. I have no problem with other people exercising their faith as long as they're not exercising it on me.

I'm not sure what you mean by forcing religion into approved paths. We have to balance religious freedom with others' rights. As long as we are all free to practice our different faiths, there has to be some compromise as far as our treatment of others.

MarkDaSpark

chemvictim wrote:I think you can separate the two. You can practice your faith privately. By that I mean, hold yourself to whichever standards you like (and these are not all the same for all religious people, obviously), but do not try to compel others. More walking the walk, less talking the talk. I like to think that most people do that already. If you want to share your faith, you can lead by example rather than compel and threaten. I'm looking at you, gay marriage opponents.

I have to disagree about freedom FROM religion. Depending on what you think that means, I guess. I have no problem with other people exercising their faith as long as they're not exercising it on me.

I'm not sure what you mean by forcing religion into approved paths. We have to balance religious freedom with others' rights. As long as we are all free to practice our different faiths, there has to be some compromise as far as our treatment of others.

Again, if you are truly religious, you cannot separate the two. But that doesn't mean you need to force others to believe as you do, nor does it mean you need to get in their face (I'm looking at Gay Marriage proponents).

I highlighted the one sentence, because that's what the problem is on both sides. Gay Rights proponents are trying to force their agenda on Religions, just as those right-wing Religious nuts are on abortion. So if you believe that Religion shouldn't force their beliefs on you, then why is it okay to force your beliefs on them?

Edit: And again, Gov't should only have Civil Union licenses and stay out of the marriage definition. As PetiteSirah used to put it (IIRC), "A gay man is free to marry a straight woman as much as a straight man is."

You change the laws allowing people to have a spouse (which is gender neutral) for all legal purposes, such as ownership, benefits, taxes, inheritance, etc. instead of designating a wife/husband entity.

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim

MarkDaSpark wrote:Again, if you are truly religious, you cannot separate the two. But that doesn't mean you need to force others to believe as you do, nor does it mean you need to get in their face (I'm looking at Gay Marriage proponents).

I highlighted the one sentence, because that's what the problem is on both sides. Gay Rights proponents are trying to force their agenda on Religions, just as those right-wing Religious nuts are on abortion. So if you believe that Religion shouldn't force their beliefs on you, then why is it okay to force your beliefs on them?

Edit: And again, Gov't should only have Civil Union licenses and stay out of the marriage definition. As PetiteSirah used to put it (IIRC), "A gay man is free to marry a straight woman as much as a straight man is."

You change the laws allowing people to have a spouse (which is gender neutral) for all legal purposes, such as ownership, benefits, taxes, inheritance, etc. instead of designating a wife/husband entity.

I'm all for the gov't having only civil union licenses and leaving the religious definition of marriage to religious institutions to decide. I fail (as usual) to see how a gay couple getting married is forcing beliefs on somebody else. I guess they are stating their beliefs, and practicing their beliefs, but they're not making you be a part of it. As far as I am aware, the churches aren't forced to marry anybody they don't want to, for whatever reason or lack thereof.

A gay man should be allowed to marry the person of his choosing. Not the person I, or you, or PS decided is appropriate for him. You know?

MarkDaSpark

chemvictim wrote:I'm all for the gov't having only civil union licenses and leaving the religious definition of marriage to religious institutions to decide. I fail (as usual) to see how a gay couple getting married is forcing beliefs on somebody else. I guess they are stating their beliefs, and practicing their beliefs, but they're not making you be a part of it. As far as I am aware, the churches aren't forced to marry anybody they don't want to, for whatever reason or lack thereof.

A gay man should be allowed to marry the person of his choosing. Not the person I, or you, or PS decided is appropriate for him. You know?

Because as a "right", they could sue to be married in a church. Or sue because someone doesn't want to provide services due to their religious beliefs.

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

kylemittskus

MarkDaSpark wrote:I highlighted the one sentence, because that's what the problem is on both sides. Gay Rights proponents are trying to force their agenda on Religions, just as those right-wing Religious nuts are on abortion. So if you believe that Religion shouldn't force their beliefs on you, then why is it okay to force your beliefs on them?

Can you explain this paragraph further, please?

Like chem (and I think many others here), I give no emotion or belief to the word "marriage." I understand that some people do. IMO, the gov't should give same-sex couples who get whatever-word-you-want-besides-marriage every single right that hetero couples get. And if religion wants to claim the word "marriage" -- I'm not sure they have the right to, but I don't think I care -- then each church can choose to or not to recognize religiously that couple's religious union.

It seems to me that the issue is, at least as you're expressing, that you want the word "marriage" to follow whatever your religion believes it means and not allow others to have their own definition (gov't, gays, etc.). I can't imagine putting that much stake in a made up word, let alone using it as a way to make a decision for a group of people who have no affect whatsoever on your life.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

joelsisk

what are the biological reasons against a union? And we keep talking about between consenting adults, so I'm going to ignore your psychological impact. and if it doesn't affect you, why are you placing your opinions/morality above my choices?

I'm only half joking. I honestly don't see what the difference is. And, I certainly see a potentially significant financial benefit

bhodilee

joelsisk wrote:what are the biological reasons against a union? And we keep talking about between consenting adults, so I'm going to ignore your psychological impact. and if it doesn't affect you, why are you placing your opinions/morality above my choices?

I'm only half joking. I honestly don't see what the difference is. And, I certainly see a potentially significant financial benefit

honestly, and this is my redneck side, this doesn't bother me either. So long as they're consenting adults. Now, it may be stupid to marry your sister or kid from a having offspring standpoint, but people ARE stupid so whatever.

I have also have very little problem with plural marriages though. If someone is stupid enough to have more than one spouse, or share a spouse, have at it.

my keyboard is freakin out. very odd. must be time for a restart!

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

kylemittskus

joelsisk wrote:what are the biological reasons against a union? And we keep talking about between consenting adults, so I'm going to ignore your psychological impact. and if it doesn't affect you, why are you placing your opinions/morality above my choices?

I'm only half joking. I honestly don't see what the difference is. And, I certainly see a potentially significant financial benefit

Just so we're clear, you're only "half-joking" about direct-line incest. And incest, as I explain immediately following, almost exclusively, means child molestation.

And, for the record, I'm not sure I support a law against incest. The problem is that incest almost exclusively (I'd say exclusively, but I'll leave myself a tiny bit of room) originates with the sexual abuse of the child.

*I teleport us to the world of things that are completely false.* Assuming the two, let's say father and daughter, are both adults and there was no psychological, sexual, or physical abuse (no way) and both want to enter into a sexual relationship (see why I took us to this magical land?), then any offspring they produced would have major medical and developmental issues. This would be the biological issues with your argument. The psychological issues would arise from the abuse that almost assuredly occurred.

As far as familial relations outside of direct-line relationships (brother-sister, father-daughter, mother-son), I don't much care. Relationships between cousins and further-separated familial lineage may be socially odd, but I'm not sure they're a problem.

Truthfully, in my mind, your argument is along the lines of the "if gays can get married, why can't I marry a goat?" argument. Unless you seriously want to support a father/daughter sexual relationship, the purpose of your argument is to create a non-issue that detracts from what could otherwise be a logical, educated, even religiously informed discussion.

And the next common argument would be polygamous marriages. Due to tax reasons, a person can only marry one other person. And polygamy takes advantage of the welfare system (multiple children under one, or more likely, no income, since the "husband"/father is legally married to someone else) which causes further and financially large issues. In practice, though, I couldn't care less if you want to claim to be married to 30 people. Because it doesn't effect me. (In this case, the claiming to be married, and indeed, actually religiously married to X people, but economically, there are issues as explained.)

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

joelsisk

Incest requires sexual conduct, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with a contracted union/marriage. At least, unless you are somehow outlawing pre/extra-marital sex (see religious viewpoints on that), they are completely unrelated. As for the procreation aspect, homosexual couples don't procreate either (at least not as a direct result of their union), so there is no biology.

If you really want to put the psychological aspects to MY hypothetical situation, here's the facts. I'm 40. My parents are in their 70s. I have not been abused by them. After one of them dies, what reason would I have NOT to marry the survivor in order to gain the financial benefits that the law provides? Until you can prove to me that sexual gratification is a primary driver for marriage, I dispute most of your post. I would also point out that we allow people with vast age differences to marry, and even couples where both partners are in their twilight years, both of which i would contend enter into marriage primarily for reasons beyond sex.

I will reiterate that my case was between consenting adults, NOT children. And I will also categorically state that I am against sexual assault. I do not personally believe that close kin should marry, but that is my religious belief. I am just trying to follow your argument.

So, I will repeat my earlier question - if it doesn't affect you, why do you care what consenting adults choose to do? Where is that line?

Oh, and I don't believe a goat is a consenting adult, which was the prior statement.

kylemittskus

joelsisk wrote:So, I will repeat my earlier question - if it doesn't affect you, why do you care what consenting adults choose to do? Where is that line?

If you're talking about a contractual agreement (I assumed you meant a romantic/sexual relationship, as did BowTie, so I'm not crazy for making that assumption), for example, marrying your mother, then I don't care. Why would I? I do think that you would be taking advantage of the system, along the same lines as marrying for citizenship. Whether that means anything to you or not, again, doesn't affect me.

My issue is you're making the same type of argument as the "goat marriage," even if you reject that particular example. If we let gay people get married, then... Where is the line? It's slippery slope! It's a sliding scale! Blah blah blah. When marriage was first gov't recognized, couldn't the same argument have been made?

Let's draw a line, if we must. The line is consenting adults making a decision that doesn't affect others. Whether financial affects should be considered, like in the case of polygamy, is a connected but somewhat different argument.

Edit: I think it's clear, but my biological problem argument was presupposing you were talking about a sexual relationship with a direct kin. That argument doesn't apply to homosexuals because they can't reproduce. You and your mother could. And the result would be biologically terrible for the child. I'm not sure how/why you're trying to compare father/daughter child with homosexual couples.

Double edit: "You're trying to follow my argument." My argument is that two consenting adults (or one, for that matter) should be able to do what they'd like as long as it doesn't harm, endanger, or affect another person or give him/her unequal or uneven advantages.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

joelsisk

kylemittskus wrote:If you're talking about a contractual agreement (I assumed you meant a romantic/sexual relationship, as did BowTie, so I'm not crazy for making that assumption), for example, marrying your mother, then I don't care. Why would I? I do think that you would be taking advantage of the system, along the same lines as marrying for citizenship. Whether that means anything to you or not, again, doesn't affect me.

My issue is you're making the same type of argument as the "goat marriage," even if you reject that particular example. If we let gay people get married, then... Where is the line? It's slippery slope! It's a sliding scale! Blah blah blah. When marriage was first gov't recognized, couldn't the same argument have been made?

Let's draw a line, if we must. The line is consenting adults making a decision that doesn't affect others. Whether financial affects should be considered, like in the case of polygamy, is a connected but somewhat different argument.

Edit: I think it's clear, but my biological problem argument was presupposing you were talking about a sexual relationship with a direct kin. That argument doesn't apply to homosexuals because they can't reproduce. You and your mother could. And the result would be biologically terrible for the child. I'm not sure how/why you're trying to compare father/daughter child with homosexual couples.

I guess I don't see it as a slippery slope, so much as using the exact argument stated for gay marriage on another religiously defined proscription. As for polygamy, that would require a slightly more broad argument. At least, I was going by "union between any 2 consenting adults".

and to your edit - the point was that procreation is not a requirement, or really related, to marriage. homosexuals don't procreate when married, so therefore why should heterosexual marriage be tied to that, even if it was mother/son?

joelsisk

kylemittskus wrote:Double edit: "You're trying to follow my argument." My argument is that two consenting adults (or one, for that matter) should be able to do what they'd like as long as it doesn't harm, endanger, or affect another person or give him/her unequal or uneven advantages.

this last is even more problematic. who defines unequal or uneven advantages? and I'll go back to that 30 year old marrying the 75 year old that we allow now. or really any abusive marriage situation. to my knowledge, if you fill out the paperwork, no one in the recorder's office checks the health of the relationship.

kylemittskus

joelsisk wrote:I guess I don't see it as a slippery slope, so much as using the exact argument stated for gay marriage on another religiously defined proscription. As for polygamy, that would require a slightly more broad argument. At least, I was going by "union between any 2 consenting adults".

and to your edit - the point was that procreation is not a requirement, or really related, to marriage. homosexuals don't procreate when married, so therefore why should heterosexual marriage be tied to that, even if it was mother/son?

Gotcha and gotcha. The difference between your example and gay marriage is, of course, that you are marrying your mom to take advantage of a system for the fiscal betterment of yourself whereas a gay couple, presumably, is marrying for a different reason.

In your argument, I don't really see an issue honestly. At least not from a moral standpoint which is where the meat of the gay marriage issue seems to be argued. Law-wise and tax-wise, there are likely issues that the gov't wants to protect, but that is the legal standpoint which is a completely separate issue from the moral/religious.

Morally/religiously, I can see why a person would not want to get married him/herself to a member of the same sex. And no one is forcing anyone to do so. That kills religious/moral argument in my mind.

Legally/tax-wise, gay marriage would change nothing and provide no one with any unfair advantage over another person. In my mind, it would be doing the opposite. That kills the legal/tax argument in my mind.

joelsisk wrote:this last is even more problematic. who defines unequal or uneven advantages? and I'll go back to that 30 year old marrying the 75 year old that we allow now. or really any abusive marriage situation. to my knowledge, if you fill out the paperwork, no one in the recorder's office checks the health of the relationship.

You lost me here. I meant unfair as far as taxes and benefits. I think the rest is addressed above. I'm morally fine with you marrying your mom. Or a 30 year old marrying a 75 year old. Not my business.

Edit (sorry about all the edits): if we reverse the argument and do not allow consenting adults to do what they want (without physical harm to others, unfair tax/financial benefits, etc.), then where is that line drawn? To me, that's a far scarier line. And I think I'm fairly consistent. I want drugs legalized, assisted suicide legalized, etc. I want adults to make their own decisions pretty much across the board.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

joelsisk

kylemittskus wrote:You lost me here. I meant unfair as far as taxes and benefits. I think the rest is addressed above. I'm morally fine with you marrying your mom. Or a 30 year old marrying a 75 year old. Not my business.

Fair enough. I thought you meant an in-equal relationship, not financial benefit.

I would contend that the primary reason most homosexuals want marriage is for the legal benefits it provides, perhaps mostly the spousal "closest kin" relationship which confers special status for decision making (especially around health) and survival benefits. The other well known financial benefits (taxes, benefits, automatic beneficiary, etc) are a close second. There may some who also want the stigma removed, but from the few gay couples I know, that's far down on the list.

For what it's worth, I was not trying to give reasons for why we should not allow homosexual marriage, just started thinking it through and was asking for a reason to prevent the close kin marriage... I couldn't really come up with any.

kylemittskus

joelsisk wrote:Fair enough. I thought you meant an in-equal relationship, not financial benefit.

I would contend that the primary reason most homosexuals want marriage is for the legal benefits it provides, perhaps mostly the spousal "closest kin" relationship which confers special status for decision making (especially around health) and survival benefits. The other well known financial benefits (taxes, benefits, automatic beneficiary, etc) are a close second. There may some who also want the stigma removed, but from the few gay couples I know, that's far down on the list.

For what it's worth, I was not trying to give reasons for why we should not allow homosexual marriage, just started thinking it through and was asking for a reason to prevent the close kin marriage... I couldn't really come up with any.

I think you caught me. The reason homosexuals want government recognized marriage is equality. And that equality comes with all of the financial benefits. Conceded. I think that what I was thinking is that they only want what hetero couples are given; they aren't trying to take extra advantage of the system or use the system maliciously (not the best word) for their own benefit. In other words, they're motivation is driven by the desire for equality, not a malicious taking advantage of. Man, I can't find words tonight.

As to the close-kin marriage, the reason it isn't allowed is because then the gov't doesn't get to kill you with estate taxes. At least that's the reason from a gov't perspective. It also doesn't "look" right, which is an argument made by the gov't that I hate. Prostitution has a bad image. As if that is a good enough reason for it to be illegal.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

MarkDaSpark

Like chem (and I think many others here), I give no emotion or belief to the word "marriage." I understand that some people do. IMO, the gov't should give same-sex couples who get whatever-word-you-want-besides-marriage every single right that hetero couples get. And if religion wants to claim the word "marriage" -- I'm not sure they have the right to, but I don't think I care -- then each church can choose to or not to recognize religiously that couple's religious union.

It seems to me that the issue is, at least as you're expressing, that you want the word "marriage" to follow whatever your religion believes it means and not allow others to have their own definition (gov't, gays, etc.). I can't imagine putting that much stake in a made up word, let alone using it as a way to make a decision for a group of people who have no affect whatsoever on your life.

It's not just the Gay Marriage issue, it's all the anti-religion items that crop up. Religion is (has?) become a dirty word. Especially as evidenced by previous discussions here.

It's the new GroupThink model, especially accepted and urged by the Democrats. Religion is bad, liberal issues are good. And if you are against my liberal issues, you must be racist/prejudiced/stupid/evil/etc.

And really? "Claim" the word marriage? What our religions "believe" Marriage means? The word has been in use for millennia, and religions are only "claiming" it now? Do you listen to yourself?

And "each church can choose to or not to recognize religiously that couple's religious union"? If they don't recognize it as a "religious" union, it isn't one to begin with.

I have no problem with Civil Unions, nor that the gov't should give all rights pertinent to any couple (same sex or opposite sex) that are necessary for both. The problem I have (and IIRC, PS had) was that there was a re-definition of the term Marriage from it's eons old definition. Also that there is a slippery slope that eventually someone will sue churches to allow gay "marriages" to take place inside. So yes, there is investment in the proper usage of Marriage.

And by the way, one could say that ALL words are "made up". Intelligence for one.

And there sure has been a lot of discussion in between your post and my response. I just wanted to get this in.

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

klezman

MarkDaSpark wrote:I have no problem with Civil Unions, nor that the gov't should give all rights pertinent to any couple (same sex or opposite sex) that are necessary for both. The problem I have (and IIRC, PS had) was that there was a re-definition of the term Marriage from it's eons old definition. Also that there is a slippery slope that eventually someone will sue churches to allow gay "marriages" to take place inside. So yes, there is investment in the proper usage of Marriage.

"Marriage" used to be defined (not so long ago) as between two white people or two black people but not a white person and a black person. Just sayin'...

I also don't see the suing for marriage in a church argument. This is why a separation between church and state would be kind of nice - the state sanctions civil unions of whatever sort while churches/synagogues/mosques/whatever perform marriages. But there seems to be a lot of attachment to that particular word.

MarkDaSpark

klezman wrote:"Marriage" used to be defined (not so long ago) as between two white people or two black people but not a white person and a black person. Just sayin'...

I also don't see the suing for marriage in a church argument. This is why a separation between church and state would be kind of nice - the state sanctions civil unions of whatever sort while churches/synagogues/mosques/whatever perform marriages. But there seems to be a lot of attachment to that particular word.

Dude ... only in certain places, and only for a certain time. Not everywhere was it that way. You also had the "Irish need not apply" along with the "Italians need not apply". But they didn't feel the need to protest and cause re-definitions.

And you see Obama trying to insert the state into religious groups policies more and more. Only if we remain aware of the problem, can we be proactive about it.

Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me! *This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.